During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

Click to expand...

"This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)"

Well...on the bright side, you have now convinced me you were once a 2nd Lt. On the not-so-bright side it's a real shame that while you were in OCS training to be expert with all weapons they didn't inform you what ammunition the 1911 actually fires.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the typo. Should be .45 caliber. (I was thinking about the short .50 caliber spotting round on the 106 RR.)

Click to expand...

Right. You mistook an iconic handgun for a recoilless rifle. I'm sure that's a common mistake among military weapons experts.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

Click to expand...

There is no need to overthrow a lawfully elected government by force because an armed populace is a deterrent against a lawfully elected government becoming a tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize a rebellion. The 2nd Amendment restricts the government, state and national, from infringing upon the rights of peaceable law abiding citizens from owning and possessing weapons that a light infantry ought to possess.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

Click to expand...

"There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

Nevertheless that is exactly how America came to be. And that is exactly what many of our forefathers advocated when necessary. In our system of checks and balances an armed populace is intended to be the final check on government. It should not be forgotten that the courts are a branch of government.

The Swiss system of militia and democracy were well known to
English republicans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The English Whigs, supporters of individual liberty, rolled back the power
of the monarch in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Andrew Fletcher,
in A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias (1698), advocated
“well-regulated militias” to defend the country.

The Swiss system of militia and democracy were well known to
English republicans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The English Whigs, supporters of individual liberty, rolled back the power
of the monarch in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Andrew Fletcher,
in A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias (1698), advocated
“well-regulated militias” to defend the country.

Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

This was excellent. Thanks.

I think it proves my point, especially if you put it in the context that they had just fought a war themselves.

The Bern militia consisted of “the whole Body of the People, from sixteen to sixty,” and included Fusileers, unmarried men who must be ready to march at one hour’s warning, and Electionaries, the remainder. Stanyan explained: Every Man that is listed, provides himself with Arms at his own Expence; and the Regiments are all armed in an uniforme manner, after the newest Fashion; for which Purpose, there is an Officer called a Commissioner of Arms, whose Business it is, to inspect their Arms and Mounting, to take Care they be conformable to the Standard, and to punish such as fail in those Particulars.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!